You may be surprised to hear this, but the history of charitable case law in Canada involves a little-known story about war, political deception and a group of ‘United Brethren’ known as the Moravians. Really.

It should read like a Dan Brown novel.

Unfortunately, it’s not nearly that scintillating. Mostly, I’m sure, because the history of charitable law has been written by…well…lawyers.

But there is an interesting story of the protracted history of charitable law in our country and it reaches way back to Shakespearian times. That history continues to have a profound effect on the contemporary Canadian political landscape.

To make that loooooong story short, what you need to know is this: Canadian charity law is old and full of holes.

The Current State of Affairs For Canada’s Charities

Charities in Canada are strictly prevented from engaging in partisan activities (such as endorsing a political party), but they are allowed to participate in political activity (defined by the Canadian Revenue Agency as any activity that seeks to change, oppose or retain laws or policies) so long as that activity doesn’t take up more than 10 per cent of their resources. Such policy advocacy by Canada’s charities has resulted in laws against drunk driving, the regulation of smoking and the measures that eliminated acid rain.

The rest of a charity’s work must be technically charitable, and yet what, exactly, constitutes charity is a question for the ages.

And that’s a question that, at least in Canada, has never been sufficiently answered.

As a result, charities are left operating in this legal grey zone with no precise knowledge of how their activities will be seen in the eyes of the law or even how that law might be applied, and what the consequences of that law might be.

This uncertainty — on its own — would be enough to provoke a case of charity paralysis for most organizations.

But when coupled with a recent $13.4 million federal audit program of charities’ “political activities,” this legal uncertainty is enough to cripple some of Canada’s most respected charities, preventing them from carrying out their most basic mandate.

In March, a report on charitable law by the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre stated Canada’s current rules around “political activity” are so confusing they create “an intolerable state of uncertainty.” The report — prepared for DeSmog Canada — called for sweeping reform of Canadian charitable law in line with other jurisdictions such as the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and England.

Charities: Mind the Gap

The law that governs charities — the Income Tax Act — “doesn’t define the term ‘charitable,’ ” Kathryn Chan, assistant professor of law and charitable law expert at the University of Victoria, told DeSmog Canada.

“The body of law upon which the courts and the Canada Revenue Agency have always relied on for determining who is charitable and who is not in this country is a body of case law that has a very long lineage and goes back at least to 17th century England,” she said.

Chan added that even with that history behind us there is sparse case law in Canada related specifically to charities “and so there are gaps.”

That means “the parameters around the kinds of things our charitable laws are based on are laws that were set in 17th and 18th century England and this arguably isn’t a very accurate reflection of our contemporary society.”

Modern-day concerns such as drunk driving, second-hand smoke or climate change just weren’t around hundreds of years ago when the first definition of ‘charity’ emerged in a British courtroom.

This leads to a situation in Canada where charities are forced to rely on the “discretion of the Canada Revenue Agency.”

But the agency “has very loose parameters within which to make decisions as to the charitable status or not of organizations,” Chan added.

“The less clear the law is, and the less clear the legislation is, the greater discretion you’re vesting in the administrative agency.”

“It gives rise to a lot of uncertainty for sure.“

Compounding the difficulty this uncertainty creates for organizations is the fact that charities aren’t often in a position to challenge the Canada Revenue Agency’s legal interpretation.

So, Chan said, “if we’re going to move things forward in the courts you need some champions.”

And that’s where the Pemsel Case Foundation comes in.

A Case to Be Made for Charities

The Pemsel Case Foundation — named after a pivotal 1891 judgment in England that made charities exempt from income tax (that’s where the Moravians come in) — has a mandate to clarify the law when it comes to Canadian charities, both inside and outside the courtroom, says executive director Peter Broder.

“There are actually a relatively small number of cases that are litigated in Canada and because of that, the opportunity to develop a robust intellectual analysis of what qualifies as charitable and what doesn’t is limited in comparison to other jurisdictions,” Broder said.

He added his foundation  — founded in 2010 — doesn’t argue whether a particular organization should be granted charitable status or not. Instead it is trying to develop a ‘charity test’ for the courts that can help determine when and where charitable status makes sense.

“The important thing — for the purposes of developing the structure of law in Canada — is that we use the right test and that the right considerations go into that test,” he said. “We are looking for an outcome that is rigorously argued as opposed to an outcome that is arbitrary.”

For example, Broder offered up the question of whether one amateur youth soccer organization might qualify for charitable status. He said the Crown expressed concern that introducing one group of this kind would result in all 21,000 other amateur soccer associations in Canada wanting charitable status.

But the cost or inconvenience of that consequence shouldn’t play a role in the decision for one soccer association, Broder said.   

Legally it should come down to whether another analogous group had previously been deemed charitable.

“We would argue that it’s not about the costs,” Broder said.

“Outside Canada, the fiscal consequences of a decision are not generally a significant consideration in determining the meaning of charity.”

“What we’re trying to do is to make sure that they use the appropriate test and apply it in the appropriate way.”

But, he adds, “We’re not the white knight.”

No Evidence Audits Are Politically Motivated: Broder

Broder characterizes the work of the Pemsel Case Foundation as “scholarly.” He said the goal of the organization isn’t to be oppositional, but to clarify the law.

With respect to critics who claim some of CRA’s recent political activities audits are‘politically motivated, Broder says he’s “agnostic.”

But he does say there is significant room for improvement within the law.

“If the law is clear and there is more certainty to the law — it is easier for the administrator and it is easier for the person who is trying to abide by the law,” he said. “If the law is loose and vague then the opportunity for it to be abused at an administrator’s discretion is greater, but just because it’s loose and vague does not mean there is administrative abuse.”

Canada Needs Fulsome Public Debate On Charities

Perhaps the most notable thing about Canada when it comes to charitable law, Chan said, is our lack of public debate.

“Where Canada is kind of unique is in the almost negligible amount of political debate — actual debate within the legislature or within the public — about what kinds of things should be charitable and what should not,” Chan said.

Ask an average person on the street about Canada’s charities, she said, and they won’t know a thing about them. For instance, they are unlikely to know that many of our universities and hospitals operate under the charity umbrella.

There are conversations to be had about the charitable sector in Canada and what service that sector should perform, Chan said. And for that, Canadians need more than the strategic litigation undertaken by the likes of the Pemsel Case Foundation.

“Canadians might want to have a say in determining what our charitable sector looks like: who’s in and who’s out and how it should be administered,” she said. “Ultimately I think that we need a broader political conversation about the way forward.”

Image Credit: David Garrick Between Tragedy and Comedy, BBC

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Good public policy improves the lives of Canadians, and contributions from civil society groups can significantly improve the public policy that governments make. Despite the benefits of working well together — to both sides, and to Canadians overall — relationships between the sector and governments are not without challenges.

Note: the term "civil society groups" includes both nonprofits, which have no limits on their political activities, and charities, which have well-defined limits on their “political activities,” as described below.

In the last three years, many within the charitable sector have become concerned about Canada Revenue Agency audits focused on political activities, but few realize that controversy over the regulation of charities dates back decades in our country.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

The current controversy revolves around 52 charites being audited in a $13.4 million program launched by the federal government in 2012 to determine whether any are violating a rule that limits spending on political activities to 10 per cent of resources. Some of those charities, including Environmental Defence, the David Suzuki Foundation, Canada Without Poverty, Ecology Action Centre and Equiterre, have gone public with the fact they are undergoing audits.

On February 6, 2014, CBC reporter Evan Solomon published a story and aired a segment on the television program Power and Politics about these audits. The news story raised the question of whether environmental charities critical of the government are being unfairly targeted for their “political activities” as defined by Canada Revenue Agency.

In October 2014, the Broadbent Institute further interrogated that question by releasing a report called Stephen Harper’s CRA: Selective audits, “political” activity, and right-leaning charities.

The Broadbent report examined publicly available CRA tax filings of 10 “right-wing” charities and cross-referenced these with their publicly available work. In each case, the charities had reported they had conducted no political activity between 2011 and 2013.

The Broadbent Institute’s report, which includes the Fraser Institute, the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and Focus on the Family, provides examples of activity for each of the charities that the report’s authors argue meet the CRA’s definition of “political activity.” It’s unknown whether any of these charities are currently under audit.

Flashback to 1978: Trudeau Government Accused of “Muzzling Charities”

Controversy around charities undertaking “political activities” is anything but new. Thirty-six years ago, in February of 1978, the Trudeau government issued Information Circular 78-3. It warned charities that any political objects or activities would be understood as contravening the Income Tax Act, and could result in the revocation of an organization’s charitable status. The document took a broad view on what constituted political activities, and clarified that none of a charity’s resources could be devoted to them.

Charities, the federal opposition parties and the press reacted strongly to Information Circular 78-3, arguing it contravened the right of free speech, unduly constrained charities in their pursuit of improving society and ran against the democratic values of Canadians. 

An editorial in the Toronto Star from April 18, 1978, captures the tone of the response, calling it “outrageous” for the Trudeau government to “muzzle charities” with guidelines that “take the narrow view that while charities can directly aid the needy, for example, they can’t advocate changes in public policy that might benefit the needy [because] this is considered political activity.”

The Trudeau government defended its actions by claiming the information circular wasn’t a shift in policy, but rather only a reflection of the imperfect case law according to which purposes and activities of charities must be interpreted. Under ongoing pressure, the Trudeau government eventually suspended the circular. 

In 1987, the Mulroney government released Information Circular 87-1, which advanced the now familiar approach of allowing charities to undertake ancillary and incidental political activities that are not partisan and limited to expenditures of 10 per cent of a charity’s resources. The 1987 policy statement also required that charities report on both exempt and political activities in their annual information returns.

The mid-1990s to early 2000s saw an unprecedented amount of activity oriented to improving the relationship between the federal government and the charitable sector. It culminated in June of 2000, when the Chrétien government announced the Voluntary Sector Initiative, a five-year joint initiative between the sector and the government set up to improve their working relationship. Among the many outcomes of the initiative was a Code of Good Practice on Policy Dialogue (2002), which makes explicit why and how the federal government and the sector should work together on public policy.

In 2003, based in large measure on the work described above, and after open consultation with the sector, the Charities Directorate of Canada Revenue Agency updated its guidance on political activities with the release of CPS-022, which is still in effect today. It is substantially the same as Information Circular 87-1, but is more explicit and makes greater use of examples than previous guidance.

A close reading of the guidance reveals that Canada Revenue Agency permits more latitude in terms of political activities than many in the sector appear to believe (see: 10 Ways Charities Have Improved Canadians' Daily Lives). It would seem that at least some of the purported “advocacy chill” often cited in the sector flows from charities themselves not fully understanding the range of activities permitted by the regulator.

While some of the “chill” may be caused by charities’ own lack of understanding of the law, there’s no doubt part of it can also be attributed to the perception of a crackdown on the environmental sector.

While a robust regulator that conducts regular audits is an essential element of a well-functioning charitable sector, being audited is a stressful, time-consuming exercise that distracts from a charity fulfilling its mission. And when you have a government that has openly accused Canadian environmental groups of  “money laundering,” it’s little wonder environmental charities are feeling a little on edge at the moment. Only time will tell how the current audits will go down in the history books.

Obviously, the challenges presented by imperfect case law and an arcane regulatory regime around charities persist today. The Charities Directorate has recently launched a series of tools to help charities understand the rules. And the Pemsel Case Foundation was recently founded with a mission to foster better knowledge and understanding of charity law and regulation by the Canadian public and voluntary sector organizations.

A number of funders, including Max Bell Foundation, have taken an active interest in supporting charities who do public policy advocacy. I would hope these initiatives and others like them will help warm Canadian charities to the idea of doing public policy advocacy — because the potential rewards for all of us are enormous.

This article originally appeared in The Philanthropist.

Photo: Obert Madondo via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.